W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-dxwg-wg@w3.org > June 2018

Re: [dxwg] Profile negotiation [RPFN]

From: kcoyle via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2018 23:40:07 +0000
To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-399276297-1529624406-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Rob, I do see the problem as the alignment between the use of the term "profile" in the two different deliverables. Whether we can align them, we'll have to see. The use of "application profile" in deliverable 2 (guidance for APs) becomes quite broad if we are to cover ANY metadata. Yet the conneg use case may need to allow for any metadata schema, not just those that meet our definition of "profile." 

As for if (A) and (B) are different datasets, the definition that I find in the DCAT document is:

"A dataset in DCAT is defined as a "collection of data, published or curated by a single agent, and available for access or download in one or more formats". A dataset is a conceptual entity, and may be represented by one or more distributions that serialize the dataset for transfer. "

Earlier discussion has likened DCAT datasets to FRBR:work (lots of warts there), so your definition of dataset coincides with the DCAT one, and I used "dataset" perhaps more in line with DCAT's "distribution" which reads: "Definition: | Connects a dataset to its available distributions." That definition seems to be undergoing discussion, and the emphasis on "serialization" may be an issue. I also note that "format" is  dct:format, aka IANA media type. However, I'll try to be more in line with DCAT definitions in the future. 


-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by kcoyle
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/74#issuecomment-399276297 using your GitHub account
Received on Thursday, 21 June 2018 23:40:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 30 October 2019 00:15:44 UTC